Biutiful (Iñárritu)

[B-side]

gtBnCWLIfYg

Not really sure what to make of this.

[Boner M]

Iñárritu is such a relic.

[Qrazy]

I like his aesthetic. I think one of these days he'll really hit it out of the park.

[soitgoes...]

I am a fan of Iñárritu, but I really would like to see him move away from the multiple story lines loosely tied together thing he's done in his previous three films.

[Ezee E]

I am a fan of Iñárritu, but I really would like to see him move away from the multiple story lines loosely tied together thing he's done in his previous three films.
Lucky for us all, there's only one storyline that we'll want to slit our wrists to in this one.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, I have the same problem with Iñárritu, specially since Babel was so random and just plain bad.

Post Guillermo Arriaga, though, it looks like he's trying different things.

[baby doll]

Man, what a stooped title.

Otherwise, I find Iñáritu pretty mediocre. I'm generally a fan of network narratives and scrambled chronologies (for instance, any Atom Egoyan film), but I find that Iñáritu's movies are rather forgettable (Babel) when they're not outright bad (21 Grams). Even his best film, Amores perros, is not one I've had much desire to revisit in the eight years since I first saw it. (On the other hand, I wound up watching The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada like four times, so maybe Arriaga just needed a better director.)

Anyone else think that Javier Bardem's best movie is still Jamón, jamón?

[megladon8]

I'd like to see some more stuff with Bardem. Particularly Jamón, jamón and The Sea Inside.

I've still only seen No Country For Old Men and Collateral from his filmography.

[[ETM]]

I've still only seen No Country For Old Men and Collateral from his filmography.

That's like... nothing.

[soitgoes...]

Man, what a stooped title.
I guess it's in the same vein as all those Japanese films that use English words, and change them to correspond to their native language (Hausu, Ringu, Metoroporisu). I don't quite understand it either.

[Ezee E]

Rewatched him Vicki Cristina Barcelona recently. Great work there. My brother joked about how he wish he'd switch roles with that movie and No Country For Old Men. Good laughs.

[baby doll]

I guess it's in the same vein as all those Japanese films that use English words, and change them to correspond to their native language (Hausu, Ringu, Metoroporisu). I don't quite understand it either.I don't speak Spanish, but hen I typed "beautiful" into Google language tools, I got "Lo bello" and "La belleza" for nouns, and "bello," "hermoso," "guapo," "lindo," "bonito," "precioso," and "magnÃ*fico" for adjectives. If you wanted to say "How beautiful!" in Spanish, you have your choice between, "iqué maravilloso!" and "¡qué hermoso!" They got words for beautiful comin' out the wazoo.

[Spinal]

Monologue is a little silly, but I'm still very excited to see this.

[Sxottlan]

Do you think anyone should tell them they spelled the title wrong?


Rewatched him Vicki Cristina Barcelona recently. Great work there. My brother joked about how he wish he'd switch roles with that movie and No Country For Old Men. Good laughs.

Jude Law has already done that on Saturday Night Love.

"We will fly to Seville. We will drink wine. We will make love and then I will kill you."

[soitgoes...]

I don't speak Spanish, but hen I typed "beautiful" into Google language tools, I got "Lo bello" and "La belleza" for nouns, and "bello," "hermoso," "guapo," "lindo," "bonito," "precioso," and "magnÃ*fico" for adjectives. If you wanted to say "How beautiful!" in Spanish, you have your choice between, "iqué maravilloso!" and "¡qué hermoso!" They got words for beautiful comin' out the wazoo.Phonetically you would spell the word Biutiful if a Spanish speaker was to say the English word correctly. To a Spanish speaker: Biutiful= Bee-oo-tee-ful. Beautiful=Bay-ah-oo-tee-ful. No Biutiful isn't Spanish. Just like Hausu isn't Japanese for House. But to a Japanese speaker, that is how you would spell House for them to say it correctly in English.

[Boner M]

Just watched the trailer and lost my shit at the final line of v/o narration. "When you come out of the storm your life won't be the same, it will be beautiful."

http://assets.gearlive.com/celebrities/blogimages/James_Blunt_2_thumb.jpg

[Boner M]

Excited for Bardem's work, tho.

[MacGuffin]

Well, Babel sucked aside from Rinko Kikuchi and Koji Yakusho, so I guess I'll wait for reviews and go from there.

[Grouchy]

Phonetically you would spell the word Biutiful if a Spanish speaker was to say the English word correctly. To a Spanish speaker: Biutiful= Bee-oo-tee-ful. Beautiful=Bay-ah-oo-tee-ful. No Biutiful isn't Spanish. Just like Hausu isn't Japanese for House. But to a Japanese speaker, that is how you would spell House for them to say it correctly in English.
Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I'm not crazy about the title either, but I can see what they were going for.

[soitgoes...]

Well I was wrong about the title. The film is a general bore. At 150 minutes, I'm pretty sure Iñárritu could have cut out a good solid 45 minutes, and presented something better. The last bits were good, but not good enough to make me forget about how I got there. It's funny because at first glance it seems like this is the first film where he stepped away from movies with three storylines, but on closer look they're still there, albeit much more subtle.

[number8]

How were you wrong about the title?

[soitgoes...]

How were you wrong about the title?Yeah it is somewhat right (it is explained through the film), but my thinking of why the film is called Biutiful is wrong. I thought it was just a bastardization of an English word for Spanish speaking audiences. I didn't think it would have any actual meaning to the film.

[Ezee E]

People can't help but laugh when I tell them about the movie and that he accidentally kills all the immigrants sleeping in the basement.

I was still affected by the self-destructive mother though.

[baby doll]

As far as these things go (i.e., big-budget, big-star neo-neo-realist co-productions in which a surfeit of ambition can't disguise the project's essential mediocrity; see Incendies), this one isn't so bad.

[Boner M]

Incendies is miles better than this turd.

[baby doll]

Incendies is miles better than this turd.I'm partial to Biutiful myself, but at this level of (non-)acheivement, who wants to argue? It's like trying to choose between Ron Howard and Edward Zwick, or Judd Apatow and Kevin Smith.

[Boner M]

It's like trying to choose between Judd Apatow and Kevin Smith.
If you want to dance around the surface, then sure.

[origami_mustache]

Obviously an unpopular opinion, but I thought the film was fantastic. There are some truly visually stunning sequences. The police raid is especially impressive and the club scene was pretty great too just to name a few. I'll admit Iñárritu tries to cram in too much melodrama, but while watching it I actually thought the performances and editing made it flow well enough that it didn't come across as forced and I never got bored.

[soitgoes...]

There are some truly visually stunning sequences. The police raid is especially impressive and the club scene was pretty great too just to name a few.I do agree with this, and honestly, this is what salvaged the rating it got from me. The handful of well shot sequences, or just well shot shots, aren't enough for me.

There is an exceptionally creepy element with the dead souls on the ceiling after the immigrants asphyxiated.

[Boner M]

The film's only aesthetically pleasing in the most vapid, empty way possible. Yeah, that club scene is pretty cool, but does it add anything other than a surface distraction to break the torpid rhythm of the film? (ie, Bardem glowers, urban squalor montage accompanied to forlorn acoustic guitar strumming, repeat x1000).

[baby doll]

The film's only aesthetically pleasing in the most vapid, empty way possible. Yeah, that club scene is pretty cool, but does it add anything other than a surface distraction to break the torpid rhythm of the film? (ie, Bardem glowers, urban squalor montage accompanied to forlorn acoustic guitar strumming, repeat x1000).Speaking of urban squalor, part of the reason I'm willing to cut this movie a certain amount of slack is that the grungy decor acts as a corrective against Vicky Christina Barcelona.

[origami_mustache]

The film's only aesthetically pleasing in the most vapid, empty way possible. Yeah, that club scene is pretty cool, but does it add anything other than a surface distraction to break the torpid rhythm of the film? (ie, Bardem glowers, urban squalor montage accompanied to forlorn acoustic guitar strumming, repeat x1000).

The overall visual aesthetic contributes to the whole gritty uncomfortable feel of the film and sets the tone more than anything. The handheld camera work, film grain, fast editing, etc. adds much more than surface distraction. The club scene is a fantastic juxtaposition of hedonism colliding with the unraveling of Bardem's miserable life. For me the visual aesthetic of a film is the most important element and Iñárritu has undeniable talent as a director in this department.

[transmogrifier]

Speaking of urban squalor, part of the reason I'm willing to cut this movie a certain amount of slack is that the grungy decor acts as a corrective against Vicky Christina Barcelona.

What's this obsession with American movies set overseas not being "real" enough? What the hell do you expect from movies that are being made by outsiders, and often featuring outsiders as the main protagonists (I'm think Woody Allen specifically here)? I can watch a thousand miserable French films about arthritic donkey wranglers living in abject rural poverty, but every now and then, it's important to remember that the Eiffel Tower exists, and shitloads of people travel from miles around to see it. Is this too sweaty-armpit everyday average Joe for the bloggy cineasthete these days?

Criticise a film for a bad story, or boring characters, or whatever, but to complain that it shows a real-life place as too pretty is a cynical attempt at "I watch CNN, I know the world is crap" artistic wing-clipping.

And yet when Allen did it with Manhattan, in the very first minutes, it's a work of genius. He does it for Barcelona or Paris, and he's shallow. Why? Because of some weird compulsion for critics to insist that positive romanticism only come from the locals.

[Ezee E]

Nice post.

[baby doll]

What's this obsession with American movies set overseas not being "real" enough? What the hell do you expect from movies that are being made by outsiders, and often featuring outsiders as the main protagonists (I'm think Woody Allen specifically here)? I can watch a thousand miserable French films about arthritic donkey wranglers living in abject rural poverty, but every now and then, it's important to remember that the Eiffel Tower exists, and shitloads of people travel from miles around to see it. Is this too sweaty-armpit everyday average Joe for the bloggy cineasthete these days?

Criticise a film for a bad story, or boring characters, or whatever, but to complain that it shows a real-life place as too pretty is a cynical attempt at "I watch CNN, I know the world is crap" artistic wing-clipping.

And yet when Allen did it with Manhattan, in the very first minutes, it's a work of genius. He does it for Barcelona or Paris, and he's shallow. Why? Because of some weird compulsion for critics to insist that positive romanticism only come from the locals.Allen was actually asked about this in his most recent Cannes press conference (by a French journalist, if memory serves), and his answer is that his idea of both Paris and New York was shaped more by the movies than reality. (I guess this the reason why you so rarely see a black person in Allen's New York.) I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with reminding people that Bareclona, London, New York, and Paris are beautiful (there's an entire tourism industry devoted largely to doing precisely that), but it seems limiting--and a little lazy--as an artistic strategy.

[transmogrifier]

I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with reminding people that Bareclona, London, New York, and Paris are beautiful (there's an entire tourism industry devoted largely to doing precisely that), but it seems limiting--and a little lazy--as an artistic strategy.

So basically it is lazy to not depict every single aspect of reality in your movies? Hold the phones, people - movies just got a lot more turgid!

I mean, hell, one in three people on Earth are either Chinese or Indian, so every movie should have 33% of its cast as one of these two in order to better reflect reality. I don't want to hear about the fact that some sub-regions of this Earth don't hold to that average - just like some places in a city aren't crack-infested hellholes - I just want my movies to reflect statistical averages and to be all-inclusive!

And more to the point, what the hell was Black Swan thinking depicting only ballet? There are way more dances than that, and it is lazy and limiting to pretend that ballet is the only dance that exists. I mean, did they even mention line-dancing in passing? How hard would that have been? Bloody ballet-centric Hollywood elites, I tell ya.

[origami_mustache]

This point seems to be getting exaggerated about as much as the corny reality created in these types of films. Alternate movie realities are fine and all when the film is well executed and the fictional world works within the context of the film but, more often than not they turn out to be laughably unrelatable outside of shallow entertainment.

[transmogrifier]

This point seems to be getting exaggerated about as much as the corny reality created in these types of films. Alternate movie realities are fine and all when the film is well executed and the fictional world works within the context of the film but, more often than not they turn out to be laughably unrelatable outside of shallow entertainment.

Unrelatable to who, though? The audience, or the smarmy critic who just "knows" what Paris is "really" like?

I mean, Burn After Reading is hardly grounded in the day-to-day reality of the CIA, is it? And the Coens are hardly ex-CIA operatives. But they get a pass because it is obviously a comedy, and you realise that they were never trying to present the "reality" of the operation. We watch it, enjoy it, and every thing's fine. But that sort of acceptance goes out the window when, instead of an institute like the CIA, it is a country that gets a similar "skewed" perspective by an outsider. Suddenly, it's like the worst crime a film-maker can commit, to not be "real", as if all the critics have suddenly turned into back-packing, Lonely-Planet eschewing travel gurus tut-tutting at the average traveller having the gall to go somewhere popular, or see something famous. And that's the point I was making in regards to baby doll's silly "corrective" statement, as if Vicky Cristina Barcelona needed to be corrected for not being "real" enough - as if that was what it was trying to be in the first place.

[baby doll]

Unrelatable to who, though? The audience, or the smarmy critic who just "knows" what Paris is "really" like?

I mean, Burn After Reading is hardly grounded in the day-to-day reality of the CIA, is it? And the Coens are hardly ex-CIA operatives. But they get a pass because it is obviously a comedy, and you realise that they were never trying to present the "reality" of the operation. We watch it, enjoy it, and every thing's fine. But that sort of acceptance goes out the window when, instead of an institute like the CIA, it is a country that gets a similar "skewed" perspective by an outsider. Suddenly, it's like the worst crime a film-maker can commit, to not be "real", as if all the critics have suddenly turned into back-packing, Lonely-Planet eschewing travel gurus tut-tutting at the average traveller having the gall to go somewhere popular, or see something famous. And that's the point I was making in regards to baby doll's silly "corrective" statement, as if Vicky Cristina Barcelona needed to be corrected for not being "real" enough - as if that was what it was trying to be in the first place.I might be sympathetic to an Emmanuelle-esque fantasy about improbably beautiful people screwing in ritzy tourist destinations if it were all imaginative, but Allen simply regurgitates clichés about suave Latin lovers and firey brunettes that we've seen in a million other movies. For this sort of thing, I vastly prefer Jamón, jamón (also featuring Bardem and Cruz) and Sex and Lucia.